The Moto Z Play, with its combination of 3510 mAh battery, Snapdragon 625 processor and 1080p screen has great battery life. Add in a power pack Moto Mod if you need even more. It's a mid-range phone for a mid-range price (and so comes with tradeoffs), but it's a solid phone and for battery life it's excellent. Mine just got the Android 7 upgrade too.
I think neverminder meant that, amongst countries that separate, the larger of the new countries will generally be better off than their smaller neighbour. Your list doesn't address this point.
Examples would include Pakistan-Bangladesh; Czech Republic-Slovakia; and Sudan-South Sudan.
Your own list has a counterpoint: Bangladesh has a better HDI than Pakistan. Republic of Ireland also has an higher HDI than the UK and they were in much worse state than the UK when they became independent.
I know a few keen amateur astronomers who make extra cash by producing astronomical equipment for other amateurs. Some of them are very skilled, and could probably start a fully-fledged business if they wanted to, but they prefer to keep it as a hobby.
I paid one guy $400 to build me an equatorial platform for my 12-inch Dob. The value it provides me is way higher than the financial cost, and he could probably charge more for his work, but I think his main motivation comes from the satisfaction of building things he's proud of and that others can enjoy. Certainly, when I occasionally donate my time and knowledge at public astronomy outreach events, I find it very rewarding, especially if I can inspire children's interest.
N.B. By far the biggest weakness of Dobsonian (or any alt-azimuth mounted) telescopes is the lack of tracking, and thus having continuously to nudge the tube to keep objects centred. An equatorial platform eliminates this weakness, and I strongly recommend one to anyone who's frustrated with their alt-az scope.
you can track with an alt-az mount, no problem. It doesn't rotate, but as long as you know an alt az pointing, and have feedback servos, you can track any celestial location. Tracking at very high azimuth is hard, though.
Next time you get a common cold, pick any (non-toxic) substance you like, ingest it twice a day, and within about a week you should be feeling much better.
1. Allow limited following of accounts. Right now, when you follow someone, it's either all (default) or nothing (if you mute/unfollow). But in many cases, I'm only interested in a subset of someone's tweets, on certain topics. For example, I'd follow many more scientists if I could just see their tweets on science, but not see their political or personal or sports-related tweets, which add too much noise to my feed. This would also be good for tweeters, as they could freely tweet about anything they like without risk of alienating followers.
Maybe Twitter could use the hashtag system to accomplish this?
2. Make replies work better. Relax the character limit for replies to several hundred characters, make replies threaded, make low-quality replies go away, and high-quality replies float to the top (just like HN). Remove the line noise by having @ and # symbols not show up in the feed. Hashtags and mentions also shouldn't use up any characters. If all this happens, it will become reasonable to have actual conversations on Twitter.
3. Stop showing me duplicate tweets. Once I've seen a tweet, I shouldn't see it again if it's reposted (something many media outlets tend to do frequently).
Actions like this will make Twitter a better experience for regular users, and should help to kickstart growth.
4. Charge whales (those with the most followers, who disproportionately benefit from using Twitter) actual monthly fees.
That doesn't follow, at all. If we're talking about Earth-like life, then any such life would need protection from radiation to be able to live long enough to reproduce. If such protection wasn't provided by the planet's atmosphere, then life there wouldn't move out of the water. In any case, the mutation rate would need to be extremely low, as it is with Earth life.
I think they'd have pressure not to write clickbait articles.
At present, clickbait works because it makes money by driving ad impressions. Many readers don't even mind wasting time on such content, and those who do quickly move on. The downside to the publications churning out clickbait is minimal, because the readers have little investment in the product.
But once people are paying their own money to read articles (even a nominal amount), their attitude to clickbait will change. After they've been burned a couple of times by a particular outlet, they won't pay them for any more of their articles. But they will return to those outlets that provide value for money.
Presumably, most people will still stick to low quality but free sources, but I think there's a potentially substantial market for high quality content, if the price is right.
The big question is, will the amount people are willing to pay cover the costs? Real journalism can be expensive.
